Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
STEINBUCH v. CUTLER - Document No. 25

STEINBUCH v. CUTLER - Document No. 25

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9|Likes:
Published by Justia.com
Joint MOTION for Discovery Joint Rule LCvR 16.3 Conference Report by ROBERT STEINBUCH. (Rosen, Jonathan) 1:2005cv00970 District Of Columbia District Court
Joint MOTION for Discovery Joint Rule LCvR 16.3 Conference Report by ROBERT STEINBUCH. (Rosen, Jonathan) 1:2005cv00970 District Of Columbia District Court

More info:

Published by: Justia.com on Apr 29, 2008
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2013

pdf

text

original

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steinbuch
:
Index No.: 1:05-CV-970
(PLF)
Plaintiff,
:
Judge Paul L. Friedman
:
-v-
::: JOINT REPORT FOR
: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Cutler
:
Defendant. :
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT RULE LCvR 16.3 CONFERENCE REPORT
Pursuant to Local Rule LCvR 16.3, the parties after conferring submit this joint report.
JOINT SECTION OF JOINT REPORT

Within 30 days of the close of discovery, all dispositive motions shall be filed. The
parties agree that all discovery be held pursuant to a protective order of confidentiality to
protect the privacy of all parties. The parties agree that this Court shall issue a protective
order that prevents public disclosure of the information contained in discovery, including
requiring all pleadings and documents filed with the court referencing discovery to be
filed under seal.

Initial Disclosures shall be due on June 8, 2006.
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 25
Filed 05/04/2006 Page 1 of 6
STEINBUCH v. CUTLER
Doc. 25
Dockets.Justia.com
PLAINTIFF\u2019S SECTION OF JOINT REPORT
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Defendant has already filed and lost a dispositive motion. Defendant has indicated its desire to do the same yet again. If Defendant does so, Plaintiff may file a cross-motion for partial relief.

EXPERT WITNESSES

Pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 and this Court\u2019s Ruling the Plaintiff may hire expert witnesses
to provide testimony on topics including computer/internet technology and damages.
Plaintiff requests this Court to set a date by which the parties shall disclose any experts to
each and that no expert witnesses may be used if not identified within this period. The
remaining requirements of Rule 26(a)(2) remain in effect.

DISCOVERY
The parties have not yet requested or exchanged of documents.
Plaintiff requests this Court to limit depositions to transcriptions and not permit video
depositions which could result in unnecessary intrusion.

At this point, plaintiff is currently aware of over 30 potential witnesses other than
plaintiff that he believes he will call to demonstrate defendant\u2019s tortious actions and
plaintiff\u2019s damages. Plaintiff will take discovery of defendant to obtain the contact
information of the other individuals named in defendant\u2019s publicly-available blog, some

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 25
Filed 05/04/2006 Page 2 of 6

of whom have not yet been identified. Given the number of potential witnesses, Plaintiff estimates that the first tier of discovery could be substantially completed by January 31, 2007. The results of discovery may alter this tentative estimate, and after this discovery is completed, Plaintiff will determine whether additional discovery will be necessary in a second tier of discovery. Accordingly, no trial or scheduling conference date can be set at this time.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
At this stage in the proceeding, the Plaintiff does not think it beneficial to fully transfer
the case to a Magistrate Judge.
AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

Defendant in her first responsive pleading, filed April 7, 2006, contends that \u201cJessica
Cutler gave her URL only to three of her friends, one of whom received her permission to
provide the Blog's URL to a fourth person. . . . [O]n May 18, 2004 somebody else gave
the blog URL site to the cyber-gossip Internet site, wonkette.com [Ana Marie Cox]. . . .
her blog became public on May 18, 2004,\u201d Answer \u00b6 10. Given Defendant\u2019s attempt to
shift responsibility for publicizing her publicly available blog, set forth without password
protection on the Worldwide Web, Plaintiff will seek to add as defendants both the
\u201csomebody else\u201d that defendant asserts alerted Cox about Cutler\u2019s publicly available
blog, and Cox. This way the Court will be in the position of determining who within the
universe defined by Defendant publicized the blog that Defendant concedes was
publicized.Id.

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 25
Filed 05/04/2006 Page 3 of 6

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->